Evolutionism the greatest story ever told
I am God!
..esssYesssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah yes true that is my dear man:
Men try to make many gods and yet....
Eyes have they, but the see NOT.
Ears have they, but they hear NOT.
Feet have they, but they walk NOT.
Arms have they, but they save NOT.
A penis have they, but it worketh NOT.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
- L. Andrew Marrposted 14 years ago
0
I just thought I would lighten the mood...
Love and peace,
Luke - Ghost32posted 14 years ago0
TheTruthHurts? Uh, no offense (or more likely, lots of offense), but...this THREAD hurts. Hurts my eyes, anyway; couldn't read more than half of it without Visine and a potty break.
As to the truth/fiction of evolution as a concept/fraud, I can only go by the Hubbers I've seen. Some have evolved from no-Hub Forumaholics into a completely different species, the PHW class of critters (Productive Hub Writers).
And then of course there's me, the AWATTDUD (Ain't Writin' A Thing These Days Unproductive Dude), otherwise known as the ISW (Intermittent Sometimes Writer)...but that's probably a throwback species, and we're here to talk evolution, not devolution.
Hm. Or, perhaps Devilution... AM I NOT the creator of humor? And you question me oh man?
If I wrote a "hub" as you call them.
The entire worlds computer memory capacity could NOT contain it dear man.
And the "fans?"
I need NO fans...I AM needless.
As far as a "score" I need no such thing, nor do I care about a score.
The score is always the same anyhow. I win.
But just FYI...I do write like the rest of mankind so I can relate to you all better and on that site my score is always over 90 sir.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן and I love my creation and all mankind.
Ever learning and yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
And these are the thinkers ???But you never thought it could be you? Pretty cocky if you ask me, then again your not asking me or anyone.
How to kill a thread!
Soooo ... We can believe the book written thousands of years ago, but we can't believe the tons of documents available on the internet today ... and I might add ... they are from the scientists who made the discovery.
Hmmm ...
I suppose the Earth went flat again. Now I need to worry about falling off.
- Crazdwriterposted 14 years ago0
Oh you are right UW. That is quite the opening post against evolution isn't it.
Let's start the laugh. A little humour by James Mellick.
--------------------------------
Darwin's Dog
It is a little known belief that when dogs go to heaven they are repaired and given a new life and then paired as companions for incoming souls that knew the joy of a dog's company. Sinners, stopped at the Pearly Gates, are given cats to accompany them to the fiery pit so that torment will be certain and they will never have nice drapes or furniture.
Atheists who did not believe in a Supreme Being but tried to compensate by living a moral and ethical life as possible, would spend eternity listening to musak, riding the elevator between the lower and upper regions; never being able to get off.
Darwin reached the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asked him if he had a dog waiting for him. "No," said Darwin, "But I spent a lot of time riding the HMS Beagle around the Galapagos Islands." St. Peter said, "With all the doubts you created about The Creator with the 'Origin of the Species' you will have to take the elevator for eternity; however, I will put a dog together to ride with you." Darwin thought he at least deserved a monkey.
So St. Peter reached into a very large, ancient bag of animal parts and began to assemble Darwin's dog. These were spare parts he had laying around since the Great Do-over, the Great Flood. From his bag he pulled the chassis of what looked like the dogasaurus rex, the ancestor of all canines. He gave the body the fangs and claws of the Saber-tooth tiger and the spiked tail and fin from dinosaurs.
"Here you go," said St. Peter. "Have a nice eternity and watch the tail and claws."
"Would you happen to have a cat?" asked Darwin.
Sourcehahaha!!! I loved that one.
Truthfully, I find it a bit sad that we can't have both science and religion. Science can't disprove God, but he is made to not exist because he can't be proven. It's almost as if ... if we can't dig up God from a pit somewhere, then he mustn't exist. A poor argument, considering how much we have learned since the inception of man - many things which we're not proven until many years later.
It's called faith, because we accept it without need of proof.
Of course, the converse is having proof on something and refusing to accept it. Many people still reject early hominids as science trying to pull a fast one, when in fact it's really not. The archeological evidence states there were other hominids before us, but that doesn't disprove God, as it never states in the Bible that there weren't other hominids before us.
Darwin worked with what proof was available at the time, but he made many mistakes because he didn't have the tools (or archeological evidence) to propose a better theory.
The fact that man didn't descend from apes should have been obvious to him though, as even then the proof he needed was all there. Was there a common ancestor? Current evidence suggest there was and we are closing in on it. Was it an ape? Well ... we are cousins to the ape, at best, and that comes from the DNA genetic record carried by us all from birth to death.
Interestingly enough ... sorry to go on a tangent here ... they played around with the genes of a chicken embryo and made it grow teeth and a tail. What they did was activate several suppressed genes that had been dormant a long time, which means the birds are even more dinosaur like than we ever imagined, and birds are probably the evolutionary completion to the dinosaurs.
Science looks might foolish on this one as they have said for years all dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and their ancestors have been among us all along.
There's also a new theory (which I subscribe to) that states species don't evolve so much as they mutate into something else, due to major climate changes on the Earth. If this proves true, then natural selection plays no part in it all, hanging Darwin from a mighty short rope.
Interestingly enough, the fossil record shows these mass extinctions occurring then all new (and different) creatures appearing. One could make an argument for spontaneous creation of a new species, but the genomes seem to point to newer species being related to older ones.
Who's right? Who's wrong? One thing is for certain ... There will always be more questions than answers as no one was there to write it down when all of this occurred and only through continually asking such questions do we learn more about the world around us, and advance as a species..
A Great example:
How do birds soar through the air? This one led to the invention of the airplane
Just need a show of hands here ... how many of us have an opposable toe that can clutch tree branches? How many other species of hominids we have found have this feature?
Anyone?
Then I suppose you won't find any example of Ardipithicus Ramidus around anywhere today. As much as I want to buy into evolution happening real slowly over millions of years it still doesn't explain the new biodiversity that arrives after every mass extinction on Earth.
If micro-evolution was responsible for it all then we shouldn't be able to find anything resembling a dinosaur today, as they all went extinct 65 million years ago. Of course, there is the open theory that they all became birds, but the 65 million years extinction line is quite a kill zone, with zero dinosaurs found above it and plenty below it. If the dinosaurs didn't become birds, then what did? Remember, birds and mammals were late comers.
However, I do believe that micro-evolution does occur. After all, it makes sense that species can change over time to adapt to their surroundings, and these adaptations should occur over millions of years, as a thousand years is but a blink in the evolutionary timeline.
So many answers and no time machine to discover the truth.
It would still be impossible and ridiculous!
Yoshi thank you for making such a balanced and well written post.
You make many very good points for discussion.well about that Ark...someone somewhere would have seen it...you could have seen it for miles. they would have talked about it...written about it...that's what humans do when they are confronted with something of this magnitude...and people would have been clamoring to see animals from all over the wolrd...animals no one had ever even heard of like penguins, polar bears, etc.
to explain the Ark's too-small size, Pam says that all other animals sprang forth from a few certain "KIND" of animals ....dogs cats horses etc...how did this happen? through EVOLVING?
Think about Noah's to-do list for a second:
go to forest
chop down THOUSANDS of trees
load trees onto skiff to haul back to build site
chop and turn limbs into lumber
shape every single piece of lumber to build an airtight, waterproof sea-worthy craft
hunt animals all over the world
get food for them all
bring animals back to Ark. keep them alive until they can be put on Ark
etc etc
- sandra rinckposted 14 years ago0
Really? I thought the bible was the greatest story ever told. doh!
- Maximus591posted 14 years ago0
Actually, I have a great respect for Pam being able to fight for what she believes in without resorting to endless verses or rhetoric. Her argument against evolution is 'tell me how it works and I'll believe it', and I truly believe she would if someone understood enough about evolution to coherently explain it all and back it up with facts. Unfortuntely, we are still infants with our knowledge, only still in the primary stages of understanding everything around us.
For all we know, both parties could be wrong. It's possible something other than evolution is at work and we just don't know enough about how it works yet.
Pam might be a creationist, but she is willing to debate rather than argue and attempts to provide facts where she can to back her claim. As such, I consider her very worthy of having a debate with and undeserving of the title 'wooly minded faithhead'.
Pam doesn't appear to be a zealot, nor does she appear to be weak-minded or unwilling to listen. If anything, she is highly intelligent and deserving of such a debate ... which is why I reentered this thread, because I saw someone worthy of debating the creationist side of the coin.
What were your questions Pam? I can give them a shot
Pam your questions are very open ended with lots of explanations and ideas.
I'll do my best to answer them, just give me a minute
As far as what kind of evolutionist I am? I'm a science major, evolution is basic basic stuff. Like I said, I am not one to say that everything in the world began as a result of evolution. However, I think it is ridiculous to deny evolution as a process. What do you mean by 8-10 different kinds of evolutionists?Damn it Cole, you are supposed to know all that...
I've had kids, I know about embryonic development,
(the drawings by a certain evolutionary liar, Mr. Earnest H.) Watch your professors reaction he'll ramble on and say it's too complicated, and leave you asking more questions and he’ll bring up the time god and fossils. You can almost bet on it.
Two fundies, one a Texan the other from Arizona, geez that must be rare!
Speaking of kids, I gotta pick mine up from school. spiderpam out
I just asked a postdoc online and he suggested the book The Evolution of Organ Systems by Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa. I've never read it but he said its interesting. He said we have a copy on campus, I could go check it out. I don't have class tomorrow by the way (not genetics anyway) so I'll try to remember to ask him Monday.
- sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago0
- JimLowposted 14 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 162
Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk
“Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks five questions.I present only the first one here. What is the evolutionists response...
- 245
The Dispute on Evolution
There is no dispute on evolution.It's one of the best understood, thoroughly tested scientific facts ever.No aspect of it at all is based on anything but sound, evidence-based, science.The current Pope accepts evolution, the previous Pope did, the one before him did. The current Bishop of...
- 21
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still beli
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still believe otherwise.Once you have got your head around the theory of evolution, it's pretty obvious that it's close to how it must work. After all, animal breeders do the same thing when they selectively breed their stock....
- 92
DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULA
DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULAPlentiful Muddy Water + A Long Time + Many Coincidences = CivilizationWhen the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone less knowledgeable than scientists, Darwinism is impossible to understand. They...
- 32
First cell & Intermediate Fossils
*I think the chances of the first cell to evolve into a fly or simpler being is one to infinite ..but not in the SimpsonsHomer Evolution*Richard Dawkin in responding to the author of 'Atlas of Creation' made fun of the view creationists have about the supposed intermediate creatures..but he didn't...
- 34
If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?
If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?In response to a previous question 6 people gave six variations of evolution: Several theories involved fish and several did not. One person discussed migration of lions? If evolution is true, why don't all...